Intellectual cooptation and justifying the savagery. The Vietnam War by Noam Chomsky
“When we consider the responsibility of intellectuals, our basic concern must be their role in the creation and analysis of ideology." - Noam Chomsky
An intellectual with studies ranging from linguistics and philosophy to history and philosophy, Noam Chomsky was a great critic of the American military campaign in Vietnam and the consequences of the imperialistic politics. In the essay “The responsibility of intellectuals”, published in February of 1967, Chomsky bases himself in the previous work of Dwight Macdonald to think this subject under the specificities of the Vietnam War.
Chomsky starts affirming a concept that to him, should be obvious. And as we still see today, there are moments where even what’s is obvious can be put in danger due to general passivity and the intellectual dishonesty of those in power:
“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass over without comment. Not so, however. For the modern intellectual, it is not at all obvious.
[…]
The deceit and distortion surrounding the American invasion of Vietnam is by now so familiar that it has lost its power to shock. It is therefore useful to recall that although new levels of cynicism are constantly being reached, their clear antecedents were accepted at home with quiet toleration. “
Due to public cynicism and apathy the critics are divided as rational or hysterics, a category that has a lot to say about the role attributed to the intellectual in a society:
“The “hysterical critics” are to be identified, apparently, by their irrational refusal to accept one fundamental political axiom, namely that the United States has the right to extend its power and control without limit, insofar as is feasible. Responsible criticism does not challenge this assumption, but argues, rather, that we probably can’t “get away with it” at this particular time and place.”
In this scenario, the sharpest critics are silenced while some discourses are legitimated by a rise of the authority under the appeal of the specialist:
“Should decisions be left to “experts” with Washington contacts—even if we assume that they command the necessary knowledge and principles to make the “best” decision, will they invariably do so? And, a logically prior question, is “expertise” applicable—that is, is there a body of theory and of relevant information, not in the public domain, that can be applied to the analysis of foreign policy or that demonstrates the correctness of present actions in some way that psychologists, mathematicians, chemists, and philosophers are incapable of comprehending?
[…]
Responsible, nonideological experts will give advice on tactical questions; irresponsible, “ideological types” will “harangue” about principle and trouble themselves over moral issues and human rights, or over the traditional problems of man and society, concerning which “social and behavioral science” has nothing to offer beyond trivialities. Obviously, these emotional, ideological types are irrational, since, being well-off and having power in their grasp, they shouldn’t worry about such matters. “
Being an technician serving the State, we have the intellectual incapable of seeing the structure under which he lives and when he affirms his position he is also nodding to the very society he should be analyzing in order to criticize:
“When we consider the responsibility of intellectuals, our basic concern must be their role in the creation and analysis of ideology.
[…]
we might say that the Welfare State technician finds justification for his special and prominent social status in his “science,” specifically, in the claim that social science can support a technology of social tinkering on a domestic or international scale. He then takes a further step, ascribing in a familiar way a universal validity to what is in fact a class interest: he argues that the special conditions on which his claim to power and authority are based are, in fact, the only general conditions by which modern society can be saved; that social tinkering within a Welfare State framework must replace the commitment to the “total ideologies” of the past, ideologies which were concerned with a transformation of society.”
This way Chomsky brings the intellectual closer to the role of a dissident and skeptic so his actions can be conscious not only of himself but also of the society he’s part of:
“Quite often, the statements of sincere and devoted technical experts give surprising insight into the intellectual attitudes that lie in the background of the latest savagery.
[..]
Let me finally return to Dwight Macdonald and the responsibility of intellectuals. Macdonald quotes an interview with a death-camp paymaster who burst into tears when told that the Russians would hang him. “Why should they? What have I done?” he asked. Macdonald concludes: “Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster.” The question, “What have I done?” is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam—as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defense of freedom.”
“The responsibility of intellectuals” was the essay that gave Noam Chomsky a political projection and this short work was later developed in his book “American power and the new mandarins”. Sadly, his words are still much needed and, as Roland Barthes essay on the specialized critics, an advertence we should not dismiss.
I was face to face with the Abaporu and I barely looked at it
“And what can I do with it if in the room there’s a line to take selfies with the painting, if there’s a bulletproof glass between me and the painting and the lights of the gallery prevents me from seeing the canvas?”
Since a small child I learned in school to recognize and value Tarsila do Amaral’s paintings, but they never put me closer to it, I never got closer to it’s huge idealistic pedestal, I wasn’t even told that I could do it. I speak like that because I know that my formative experience is common to most student who some (if any) contact with arts classes in their earlier years
And at August 2nd I got myself face to face with two of her most iconic paintings, Anthropophaghy and Abaporu. It would be dishonest on my behalf if I acted like my academic formation and my artistic interests kept me in the same childish level of innocence/ignorance after all these years. When I got the exposition “The color of Brazil” at the Arte museum of Rio (MAR), it’s wasn’t as a layman, much less as a someone who causally deals with art. I went there very interested in studying the involvement of the visitor and the experience museums proportionate to the public.
With Rio de Janeiro about to host the Olympic Games and the city full of tourists, there in the museum I found the same crowd filled with energy, joy and curiosity. Still, few of them were there due to the exposition opening that day with great brazilian artists displayed, many people walked around these works like they were the same as the others, which do not desserve less attention, but this absence of mind or indifference were na extension of environment. Located in the Mauá Square, now part of the Olympic Boulevard, the public divided itself between the MAR and Museum of Tomorrow in huge lines, maybe without knowing exactly what to expect from these institutions beyond the photos they were about to make with the artworks and the exotic architecture of both the museums.
What’s a museum?
Considering only what’s too obvious makes it easy to blame the public for not paying attention, for being too casual and superficial, however, it’s important to investigate how the museum gets involved in this experience.
Rio Art Museum (MAR).
An interesting starting point is to observe the image and the expected funtion assumed by museums nowadays. The secularization of the western society seems to be connected with the ascension of the museums as they come to have reverenced and meaningful objects and the religions face a symbolic emptying, therefore part of the value atributed to museums comes from a transference of this deep human need, be it psychological or spiritual, which we want solved by a secular art.
The consequence of this art valorization is the elevated status assigned to museums today as holders of a invaluable cultural patrimony and the obscene pricing of these originals hanged in museums and houses and galleries of certain millionaires. Something so important creates a complicated situation for the visitors who want to get closer and actually understand the importance of art to our lives. Complicated because we revere the museum and the things in it, we treasure all those works and we learn that only a few illuminated people can create those incredible objects, but how can we understand Tarsila if we consider her to be so different and superior? How can we dive in Di Cavalcanti’s paintings if we considers ourselves unable to do it because the essential can only be seen by specialists? In the museums the only help comes from these almost catalographic texts explaining the collection the small plates telling us about dates, artist and material.
At the museum, facing the vibrant colors of the huge cannibal I couldn’t care less about year, ink and owner. I see a huge and absurd creature in a simple, almost schematic, environment, with colors I know familiar to my daily life, but also familiar to everything official and canon about Brazil. And what can I do with it if in the room there’s a line to take selfies with the painting, if there’s a bulletproof glass between me and the painting and the lights of the gallery prevents me from seeing the canvas? I wait until they stop taking selfies and leave, but there’s no seat or something like that also, because apparently they didn’t think any viewer may need more time and confort to do a deeper evaluation of the painting.
MAR isn’t a problem, it isn’t about crucifying an individual museum when in reality it’s a pattern. The exhibitions are risking being only this, art showcases, where the most intelligent visitor is the one photographing the small plates, so later he can research about it and find a digital version to analyse, interpet and really bring it to his life and mind routines.
To talk about art
Before going ahead I have to make it clear that I recognize many functions exercised by museums beyond this one I’m discussing. I understand that the museum is also an institution responsible by reasearch, restoration and many other essential cultural and academic activities which by themselves justify the existence of dedicated entities. But if I’m dealing only with the contact of the visitor with the collection it isn’t due to unawareness or to attack a weak spot, it’s because I want to discuss the layman experience and not the museum as a whole. I understand It’s impossible to think the museum without these other aspects, but I’m leaving them to another opportunity.
This “experience” I’m talking about isn’t necessarily attached to any academic limitation. I consider it openly knowing there’s a multiplicity of manners through which we can relate to art, therefore I’m thinking about how to make it possible, independent of the form. I believe this contact happens when art becomes revelant in someone’s life.
An example of this situation is when we feel sad and listen to depressing music which in principle would only deepen the problem, but in reality it help us, through a momento of introspection, to elaborate that feeling because they guide us and work as a meditative framework for the mind. We understand music because in shows we’re allowed to dance, sing, drink and use drugs, there’s no pomposity or reverence before music, we listen it a tour homes and in the bus. It’s true that it may prevent us from completely enjoying it at all times, but we must admit it’s constant presence and familiarity is better than an overly serious approach.
Complexities, obstacles and a light at the end?
The museum, like a cathedral,should prioritize the personal experience and the relationship with the artworks before attempting to become a touristic icon. An example of how to do this is the Rothko Chapel, located in Houston, built with the painter to be a contemplative space now displaying 14 of his black paintings. In the chapel Rothko’s paintings work as tools to create a space able to guide reflection and the visitor’s introspection. The investment to create something more elaborate isn’t necessarily a problem, or shouldn’t be, if we consider that only the Abaporu’s insurance costed almost 300 thousands dollars, according to Jones Bergamin, presidente-director of the Rio Art Stock Exchange.
We still have to discover if museums really are capable of making this change since everything is result of a complex conjuncture raging from economic, cultural and political questions. With na international art market breaking records at auctions, a government using art as a spectacle and the lack of mass art education, it’s no surprise that museums struggle being in the middle of the crossed fire, in one side our huge expectations and in ther other the limitating environment they’re submerged.
While these questions remains open, we must occupy the spaces offering some valuable experiences despite the obstacles. To see art not as something to consume but as something alive we need to get hold of so it don’t become only a museum piece, disponible for selfies. In all it’s weirdness the Abaporu still have a tremendous intensity, of roots, of a growing towards the earth and a serenity profound even for such a powerful figure. If there’s something Tarsila do Amaral taught us is how we are able alone and there’s greatnesse even in the smaller things. It doesn’t matter what’s expected from us, we can always create if we’re brave enough to try,
Bottles in the sea: online communication and the receiver with a thousand faces
“...but if we want the potential benefits to become real it's essential that we focus on less funny things and make efforts towards greater complexities and new contacts with unknown ideas.”
It's common to discover a new hobby or unusual subjects and when we search for them on the internet we soon discover many pages and communities dedicated to them. Despite being small sometimes they're composed by people from many countries sharing the same interest. Specialized fóruns can be disorganized but they also have a surpring amount of information coming from people who share their knowledge for free, sometimes inadvertently, giving the internet it's fame of having all kinds of informations at a very low cost, if any.
Panther Modern. Digital art gallery by LaTurbo Avedon. (Click to see)
As sealed bottles with messages floating in the sea waiting for the casual meeting when the comunication will finally abandon it's mere pontential state, being on the internet doesn't mean it'll be accessed since there's always barriers like search engines, content agregators and the market tactics used by social media to enforce payment if the creator wants to reach his audience. Even though these do not deny the access they can strongly restrict the contact with a wider public. It's excessively optimistic to say that everything can be found on the internet, but the internet at least touches everything. Here we reproduce our connections from outside of it, therefore there's the possibility for any content, even if it depends on other aspects to leverage it's relevance.
To realize this idea of the internet free content is, by chance, to see that which is trivial or familiar to you being the unexpected and rare for others. To share your own experience and knowledge publicly, even in a limited medium to this kind of interaction, already is a way of making things more accessible. Specially because it's not necessarily a copy of something to the internet, but a true reelaboration of this subject and, therefore, dependent on who is doing it. This reformulation must ensure that the final result will be comprehensible for most people, even those who don't have the tools to reach it by themselves, making it better to lose something in translation than to allow the worries with the details block the possible dialog.
Umberto Eco considered his unread books an essential part of his personal library – containing 30 thousand books – because they were a potential research material and a clear reminder of how much he still had to learn. The posts seen but not read and the critics of books the reader may not know, as can happen here, also allow this curiosity that far from replacing the original work and profound studies, works as a intermediary for those who don't want or don't have the oportunity to reach these works and books. For those who read it's always a challenge and a invitation to devote some thoughts to it again.
With the virtual realities came the supposition that someday we'll abandon this real life as we know it, but the digital and the internet are extensions as real as the “analog” version of our existence and cannot be separated from our other life experiencies, which we still mistake to understand while insisting in considering it as something much different from our online existence. This care doesn't exclude the entertainment and the lightness common to our online interactions, but if we want the potential benefits to become real it's essential that we focus on less funny things and make efforts towards greater complexities and new contacts with unknown ideas, even if it generates that feeling of discomfort, even if it means to put aside the Facebook.
It's hard because we already do it in our daily lives, we deprive ourselves of so much in our efforts around our obligations and expectations both personal and professional that the internet appears as a relaxing tool after these harsh goals. But we also do this even despite the obligation, we spend money and time on books, parties, art, movies, theater and music and the benefits aren't tangible as in other materialistic situations. There's no clear exchange besides the experience and the contact with the work of others. Still, we keep doing it because living is also to assume that things like personal analysis, philosophy, interior reflections and imersion in art and other people's minds with the same fears, anxieties and joys are more urgent than the cheap mindless entertainment, our jobs and hedonistic pleasures, and this is the reflection we need to develop to fully enjoy our own potential with the internet.
As content creators – and in apps like Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook we all are creators – the seduction, the tempting invitation to meet new ideas, as religions and political parties knows and teaches us very well, this invitation must seduce, convince, persuade the other to take a look at our ideas. That's the function of beauty, music, design, simple dialog, sense of community and the gratuity, be it apparent or not, in these institutions. But if their methods works then we aren't talking about condemning religions and politics because they're so good at convincing people and ploriferating their ideas. The important is that people with better proposals should pay more attention to these details, specially because many of them deem it to be vulgar or superfluous, because disarming the other and making them listen is as important as having something valuable to say.
Alain de Botton held a presentation on the Rijksmuseum exhibition Art Is Therapy.
Due to the constant dispute for our attention we end up bombarded without mercy, from Whatsapp to Instagram, cat videos, breaking news, memes, events, messages, everything fighting for our focus and this environment by itself make it harder for any attempt of a serious personal enhacement. In this virtual reality rises a service that we already know to be essential in our lives, that of the curator. Museums, galleries, literary fairs, libraries and even movie theathers, all of them act as curators, despite not always providing what we need, they allow us to navigate a complex body of work and thought while freeing us from the efforts of the specialist and the critic. Wikipedia, Google and Youtube are indeed important, but the curator can show us what we should be searching there and also convince us to give this step towards personal and intelectual knowledge.
I write from this position, as a writer and also a curator of the few things I have to share, but that I must share. From the responsiblity of giving back the learning oportunities I had, and still have, to benefit others, but also conscious of the hardships involved in sending a message to someone, hardships that I know well since they're also mine. The Pantagruelista is back with the same objective, a trustworthy and well curated content about philosophy, literature and art and the introduction of ideas capable of interrupting our mental homeostasis and this time with renewed energy to create this fertile state of cognitive entropy.